3P73 Blog Post #1
Last week the highly anticipated United States Presidential election took place between Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump. This election cycle has been particularly polarizing between democratic and republican supporters, and the two candidates drastically differ on many issues. Both candidates have been the subject of serious scandals, and the media has played a large role in keeping the public informed and reminding us of their severity. This election is also significant because if Hilary wins she will be the first female president, and if Trump wins he will be arguably the most politically inexperienced president of all time. While the sheer novelty of these circumstances and many others that I won’t go into (Trump’s overt racism etc.) may not have people pleased or hopeful about the United States’ future, it undoubtably has them intrigued, perhaps in the same way that a bystander cannot look away from a horrible car accident. Regardless of why people are tuned in to this election, the reality is that they are. Neilson reported that a record breaking 84 million people tuned in to the debate via the 13 television channels that broadcasted it live, and this doesn’t include anyone who streamed it online or watched in a public place like a bar (Stelter, 2016).
Due to its scale and significance, this election has become an interesting current event to consider through the lens of the ideas and concepts covered in this class so far. Last week in seminar, we focused heavily on hard vs. comedy news coverage of the election and which was more effective, which was more enjoyable, and why. I’m more interested in considering what Giddens calls the “duality of structure” (Sullivan, 2013) and how the traditional two party system has enabled traditionally unacceptable behaviour by the candidates, particularly Trump, that has many people asking “how did this happen?” The concept of “structure” refers to the way people reproduce social behaviours over time. These structures can best be seen in the way that long standing institutions stick to a certain way of doing things and as a result society conforms and follows these actions or beliefs. What Giddens infers is that these structures simultaneously “enable” actions and beliefs in the same way that it constrains them. (Sullivan, 2013). This diagram is a simple visual for structuration theory and how structure simultaneously enables and constrains actions:
I think that the two party system in the United States and the way it encourages polarizing stances on high profile issues like abortion, gun control and immigration has effectively “enabled” Trump’s hateful, xenophobic rhetoric and general incoherency by stiff arming more moderate, middle leaning politicians out of contention.
Here’s what I mean by this. Below are two pieces of party propaganda:
Both pieces encourage their party supporters to vote for them regardless of the politician who’s running. The democratic piece speaks for itself, and the Republican suggests that if you are Catholic you must vote Republican, regardless of whose running and what their stance is on other issues. These are just two examples but this sentiment is extremely common for supporters of the respective parties. Pro-choice? You must vote Democratic, as most Republican candidates will run as pro-life. Gay people shouldn’t get married? Looks like you’re voting Republican, as Democrats tend to support legalization. Over the years the two parties have solidified stances on more and more issues, to the point where it is almost impossible for a moderate candidate who has mixed stances on issues to get nominated for one of the major parties, and running as an independent is essentially a guaranteed loss. It seems as though because of this the American democratic system gives off an illusion of agency when really there is very little. Yes, the public gets to vote, but they are forced in many cases to support what i’ll call ideological packages, which are the inseparable groups of ideas and beliefs that have been labeled Democratic and Republican.
I truly do not believe that Trump would have as much support as he does if it wasn’t for the political structure enabling him. He effectively pandered and lied his way through the Republican primary nomination, and put life long Republican supporters in a predicament. While there are undoubtedly people equally as hateful and seemingly uneducated enough that would support Trump regardless of his party affiliation, Trump’s nomination has torn the party far more significantly than it has been in recent history. High profile Republicans like George Bush and John Kasich have publicly exclaimed that they will not support Donald Trump (Bandler, 2016), and for that I commend them. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all Republicans who disagree with Trump. Many high profile Republicans such as primary nominees Chris Christie and Ted Cruz initially refused to endorse Trump for president, but ultimately gave in due to pressures from the party, and any hopes of prospering in the future. I can only assume that this sentiment is shared by lifelong Republicans throughout the country, who are either single issue voters or too blindly committed to their party to follow their better judgement. The inner conflict that a longtime Republican voter may feel during this election is well articulated by Will McAvoy in the following clip from the TV show “The Newsroom”.
It seems as though the two party system in the United States has simultaneously taken away agency from voters and enabled radical candidates like Donald Trump. The structure has forced voters into selecting one of two polarizing sides, and enabled radical candidates to thrive under the party’s most loyal supporters. Next time someone asks you “how could this happen?” when talking about the presidential candidates, or any political system that is based around a two party system, consider using structuration theory to propose an explanation.
Sources:
Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.
Diamond, J. (2016, February 26). Chris Christie Endorses Donald Trump. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/
Stetler, B. (2016, September 27). Debate breaks record as most watched in U.S. History. Retrieved from: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/debate-ratings-record-viewership/
Bandler, A. (2016, June 9). Here's your full list of politicians that won't support Trump. Retrieved from: http://www.dailywire.com/news/6472/heres-your-full-list-republican-politicians-who-aaron-bandler
No comments:
Post a Comment